David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> writes:
> I think it would be useful for mozilla/netscape to bail out of HTML
> parsing if it sees an xml declaration at the start of the file, but it
> certainly isn't broken if it does not do that.
>From RFC 2854, 'The media type "text/html"':
-----
This document summarizes the history of HTML development, and
defines the "text/html" MIME type by pointing to the relevant W3C
recommendations;
. . .
Published specification: ... In addition, [XHTML1]
defines a profile of use of XHTML which is compatible with HTML
4.01 and which may also be labeled as text/html.
-----
Yes exactly. That says that you should only use text/html if you
either send HTML or use XML but restrict yourself to features that make
the document parsable by either system. Nothing in what you quote
invalidates the statement of mine that you quoted does it?
I agree with you that it would be useful to relax that restriction and
recommend that the browser handles some wider class of XHTML files that
are served as text/html, but arguing that the current mozilla behaviour
could helpfully be changed isn't the same as arguing it is broken
according to the spec.
David
_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp